Читать «Еврейские Евангелии. История еврейского Христа.» онлайн - страница 59

36

See Daniel Boyarin, "Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism," Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods 41 (July 2010): 323-65.

37

Andrew Chester, "High Christology—Whence, When and Why?" Early Christianity 2, no. 1 (2011): 22-50.

38

Given the meaning of the underlying Aramaic word in Daniel, "authority" strikes me as a rather weak rendering; "sovereignty" would be much better. Sovereignty would surely explain why the Son of Man has the power to remit sins on earth.

39

Cf. Morna Hooker, The Son of Man in Mark: A Study of the Background of the Term "Son of Man" and Its Use in St Mark's Gospel (Montreal: McGill University Press, 1967), 9 0 - 9 1 , who seems to take this (in partial contradiction to her own position earlier) to be significant of a prerogative of "man" in general.

40

As New Testament scholar F. W. Beare has written, "In the gentile churches, this will not have been a burning question in itself; it will have arisen only as one aspect of the much broader issue of how far the Law of Moses was held to be binding upon Christians. Insofar as the pericope [discrete passage of the narrative] is a community–product, accordingly, it will be regarded as a product of Palestinian Jewish Christianity, not of the Hellenistic churches. The way to understanding will therefore lie through the examination of Jewish traditions and modes of thought." F. W. Beare, " The Sabbath Was Made for Man?' " Journal of Biblical Literature 79, no. 2 (June 1960): 130.

41

Generally, and this is highly important, New Testament critics have seen w. 27-28 as an addition to an original text that incorporated only the answer regarding David–or the opposite, that only w. 2 7 - 2 8 were original and that the reference to David is a secondary addition. "As Guelich observes (similarly Back, Jesus of Nazareth, 69; Doering, Schabbat, 409), these four suggestions basically boil down to two: (1) either Jesus' argument from the action of David is original, with w. 27-28 being added later in one or two stages, or (2) v. 27 (and possibly v. 28) constituted Jesus' original answer(s), with the story of David being added later." John Paul Meier, "The Historical Jesus and the Plucking of the Grain on the Sabbath," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 66 (2004): 564.

42

Menahem Kister, "Plucking on the Sabbath and the Jewish- Christian Controversy" [Hebrew], Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3, no. 3 (1984): 349-66. See also Shemesh, "Shabbat."

43

John P. Meier has written, "Clearly, then, this Galilean cycle of dispute stories is an intricate piece of literary art and artifice, written by a Christian theologian to advance his overall vision of Jesus as the hidden yet authoritative Messiah, Son of Man, and Son of God. As we begin to examine the fourth of the five stories, the plucking of the grain on the Sabbath, the last thing we should do is treat it like a videotaped replay of a debate among various Palestinian Jews in the year A. D. 28. It is, first of all, a Christian composition promoting Christian theology. To what extent it may also preserve memories of an actual clash between the historical Jesus and Pharisees can be discerned only by analyzing the Christian text we have before us." Meier,"Plucking," 567.1